TMC M5

http://blogs.edmunds.com/straightlin...hotopanel..1.*

511rwhp is pretty stout for a 5.4L DOHC 32V V-8 with a Roots-style Eaton blower right from the factory. I think that factory claim of 540 SAE hp is obviously conservative. Even if you use 12% drivetrain loss it still comes out to 580+hp. It makes me wonder what sort of #'s AMG could be putting down with a DOHC 32V 6.3L with a twin screw blower...

Tom

Donovan386

I've never been much of a Ford fan but those new Mustangs look surprisingly good and the numbers to back it up. Wow.

chawkins2001

I love mustangs. I have owned about 10 already and have another in the works. You never know what they are packing when you run into one on the street, so be careful

Vic55

I was a Ford store yesterday... I cant get completely into the GT500 in the looks, fit and finish, interior, etc department. I did though, love the exhaust note.

With that being said, the car makes some serious power.

TMC M5

True...but you have to remember the car fully loaded is $50K...not exactly cheap but also alot of power for the money. It has also put down some amazing braking and handling #'s for a live axle rear end.

Tom

Vic55

I guess it was the ugly stickers

50k is a good deal in regards to hp per dollar.

V12Godspeed

Wow...serious power right there.

MJ50

knight rider!

Point2Point

That's a lot of power, but it's strange that the 2010 GT500 only performs about even with an E55 judging by the early roadtest numbers.

alumar

the latest issue of car and driver (toward the back) put one of these through the test and it only put down a 12.3 @ 113? thats not indicative of 500+ rwhp

alumar

Here is a comment on the edmund board too putting the question to test too...

I have been consistantly putting down 440's to 450 rwhp on dynamics and mustang dynos and top trap is 117.12; that GT 500 weights about the same as the C55 too

60+ rwhp should be indicative of 122-125 traps...

TMC M5

I think traction has alot to do with that. You need some really sticky rubber and some reworking of the rear suspension to keep the GT500's light rear end planted and to put the power to the ground efficiently. Up top, the E55's much better aerodynamics also help. The major advantage is that the GT500's blower can be swapped for KB twin screw and there are a ton of other performance parts that can easily make it a mid-10 second car trapping in the mid-130's, something that cannot be said of the E55...or any MB for that matter.

Tom

TMC M5

First off magazine/website testing procedures are different. Edmunds actually averages the last 60ft to come up with an NHRA comparable trap speed like the timing lights. All the magazines tested the 2010 Shelby GT500 at Infineon Raceway on the same day. As mentioned, the headwind was pretty strong that day which would definitely affect your trap above 100mph. The biggest difference is how the magazines tested the cars. You can see a bunch of the videos on youtube. One magazine started its vbox timed runs about 50 feet before the normal 1/4 mile starting line. Maybe they did this to simulate a run on a regular road surface ... but other magazines started where the normal starting line is...although one magazine claimed that track prep was non-existent. Automobile magazine claims a 12.8 @117mph, Motor Trend ran 12.7 @ 118mph. Road & Track trapped higher (113mph+) in a GT500 convertible than in the coupe...go figure.

The GT500 weighs about 3,900+lbs which I believe is heavier than your C55. You also have to figure in all the little things we do to get an advantage at the track...icing our intakes, taking out all the dead weight from the trunk, running with less than a 1/4 tank of gas (gas weighs 6lbs a gallon) and maybe cooling down the car longer than a bunch of auto journalists trying keep on a schedule.

BTW...a MUstang dyno will normally show much lower hp figures than a Dynojet. Your 440-450rwhp is at least 470-480rwhp on a Dynojet.

Tom

K-A

The new GT500 is major drool worthy to me, I love it. The interior and fit & finish is much improved over the older models too, but of course, it is still a Mustang, so that's still not anything to write home about.

I used to be a huge Mustang guy and owned some, then my taste in cars changed and the '05's dropped the ball for me. This new Shelby just hits the right spot again though.

kipper215

The GT500 is a flying brick. where as the GTR is designed to slip through the air like silk. check out the under tray on the GTR and you will see what I am talking about. still the GT500 is a nice car for the money and with the right mods that car is dangerous.

Max.H

Yea the car is awesome and the numbers are stout. But, something about that new chassis ... They don't hook up. Maybe, it's the straight axle rear end.

str8ridin

I noticed the high HP numbers and the slow acceleration times too. The latest Road & Track has compared two new convertables:


Ford Shelby GT500 4.6 0-60 and 12.9 at 113.4 mph.
Porsche Boxter S - 4.1 0-60 and 12.6 at 110.2 mph.

What gives?

I hate to say it, but Ford is once again behind the curve. The Horsepower war is over. It's all weight savings and Launch Control systems now. That is the new bar.

I Like Soup

I was side by side with a GT500 about a week ago at around 65, was in the lowest gear, and we punched it...dead even up to about 120 when we had to let off due to Mexican traffic...